Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV01855, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV01855, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV01855 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: December 1, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV01855

¿¿

CASE NAME: Krystal Milian Aguirre v. El Camino College, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Krystal Milian Aguirre

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, El Camino Community College District

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion for Leave to Present a Late Governmental Claim

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. The Late Claim pursuant to Government Code § 946.6 shall be foiled with the District no later than January 2, 2024

¿¿ ¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff, Krystal Milian Aguirre (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, El Camino Community College District, County of Los Angeles, and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Premises Liability; and (2) General Negligence.

Plaintiff now brings a Motion for Leave to File a Late Government Claim.

B. Procedural

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff brought this Motion for Leave to Present a Late Claim Pursuant to Government Code § 946.6. On November 16, Defendant, El Camino Community College District filed an opposition. On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

“Except as provided in Section 946.4 and 946.6, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity on a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) or Part 3 of this division until a written claim therefore has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected by the board, in accordance with Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this division.” (Gov. Code, § 945.4.) “A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commending with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. . . . (Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a).)

“When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within that time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present that claim.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (a).) “The application shall be presented to the public entity as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application.” (Gov. Code, § 911.4, subd. (b).)

“The board shall grant or deny the application within 45 days after it is presented to the board.” (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (a).) “The board shall grant the application where one or more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and the public entity was not prejudiced in its defense of the claim by the failure to present the claim within the time specified in Section 911.2. [¶] (2) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was a minor during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim. [¶] (3) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss was physically or mentally incapacitated during all of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim and by reason of such disability failed to present a claim during such time. [¶] (4) The person who sustained the alleged injury, damage or loss died before the expiration of the time specified in Section 911.2 for the presentation of the claim.” (Gov. Code, § 911.6, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)

“If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (a).) “The petition shall be filed within six months after the application to the board is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b).) “This petition shall show each of the following: (1) The application was made to the board under Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied. (2) The reason for failure to present the claim within the time limit specified in Section 911.2. (3) The information required by Section 910.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)

“The court shall relieve the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.5 if the court finds that the application to the board under Section 911.4 was made within a reasonable time not to exceed that specified in subdivision (b) of Section 911.4 and was denied or deemed denied pursuant to Section 911.6 and that one or more of the following is applicable: (1) The failure to present the claim was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect unless the public entity establishes that it would be prejudiced in the defense of the claim if the court relieves the petitioner from the requirements of Section 945.4.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (c)(1).) “The court shall make an independent determination upon the petition. The determination shall be made upon the basis of the petition, any affidavits in support of or in opposition to the petition, and any additional evidence received at the hearing on the petition.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (e).) “If the court makes an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.5, suit on the cause of action to which the claim relates shall be filed with the court within 30 days thereafter.” (Gov. Code, § 946.6, subd. (f).)

B. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application with City

Here, Plaintiff asserts that she was injured on February 27, 2023. Prior to bringing this case in Court, Plaintiff notes that less than a month later, on March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely claim for damages with the City of Los Angeles, which was denied. Plaintiff asserts that it was not until August 29, 2023, that the District’s counsel sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter stating, among other thigs, that Plaintiff failed to submit a Government Claim Notice within the six-month statutory period. However, Plaintiff argues that it genuinely believed that the County of Los Angeles was the correct entity to file an injury claim with for the purpose of complying with the Government Code prior to filing the lawsuit, and noted that it would move immediately to submit a written application to the proper governing body for El Camino Community College District.

Plaintiff draws a likeness between the case at bar, and the California Supreme Court case of Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 270. In Bettencourt, counsel was from out of the area of where a college student drowned on a school sponsored trip by Sacramento City College. (Bettencourt, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 279.) Counsel there mistakenly thought the city college employees were employees of the state, and failed to discover this mistake before the claim limitation period expired. (Ibid.) However, counsel had already given defendant actual and timely notice that it might be sued when he called to request information about the accident and told the college a claim may be filed against it (Ibid.) The late claim was denied and the trial Court refused to grant relied. However, the California Supreme Court stated that such a mistake was reasonable because of the “confusing blend of state and local control and funding” of such entities. (Id. at 276-77.) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel also argues that his mistake was excusable due to confusion as to who the District’s governing body is, as well as diligent action taken by Plaintiff’s counsel upon discovery of mistake. Further, Plaintiff argues that despite the defective claim, the District was put on notice of the subject incident and Plaintiff’s injury via an incident report she filed with El Camino College Police Department on February 27, 2023.

In Defendant’s opposition, the District argues that Plaintiff should have been on notice of the proper public agency when counsel for the County of Los Angeles sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter dated August 15, 2023, informing him that Plaintiff’s claim was rejected because the “County of Los Angeles did not own, control, operate, manage, supervise or govern El Camino College” and that “El Camino College is owned, controlled, managed, supervised, and governed by El Camino College, a separate and distinct entity from the County of Los Angeles. District argues that this letter was sent twelve days prior to the deadline to file the government claim, but that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to exercise reasonable diligence in submitting a timely government claim to the district within that time. Defendant District also argues that a diligent investigation would have put Plaintiff on notice of the proper way to file a claim against District as the first page results of “El Camino College Government Claim” includes a direct link to the District’s Board Policy 3810 entitled, “Claims against the District,” which specifies, that claims against the District for money or damages, including personal injury claims, should be sent to the office of the Vice President of Administrative Services.

In Plaintiff’s reply brief, he notes that Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence as it is common practice for government entities to assert they do not own, control, operate, or otherwise have any connection with a subject premises upon filing a lawsuit, and discovery must commence before the truth is uncovered. Here, the Court points to the main difference between this case and the case of Bettencourt being the level of investigation of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys. In Bettencourt, the California Supreme Court made a point to note that Plaintiff’s counsel there immediately hired an investigator, commenced an investigation of the case, telephoned Defendant’s general counsel and director of legal services to obtain more information about the accident, and informed counsel he might file a wrongful death action on behalf of the deceased student’s parents. In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel has not provided a declaration asserting this level of investigation prior to the late filed government claim.

Nonetheless, District’s counsel advised Plaintiff-- after the expiration of the time to file the government claim -- that he failed to submit a Government Claim Notice with the District in the statutory period. The timeline here reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel moved swiftly to remedy this issue. Further, this Motion for Leave to file a late Government Claim is made within the Section 911.6 period required. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and allows Plaintiff to Present a Late Claim pursuant to Government Code § 946.6 by January 2, 2024.

¿¿